What are your thoughts on the NRA?

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm debating a life membership...

I rarely if ever think about them

 

[Wry Catcher]

Slippery Slope logical fallacy ^^^.

As if there isn't a fallacy in arguing that you don't care about restrictions on rights that you don't approve of.

I have no problem with the Second Amendment, per se. I do object to the NRA and people like you who believe the right to own "arms" should be unrestricted and that any restriction whatsoever will lead to the confiscation of all "arms".

Given the amount of gun violence in the United States, vis a vis other Western Democracies, the position of the NRA is untenable - only the money they raise and use to influence our lawmakers prevents a rational/national debate on how best to mitigate the harm done by guns.

That debate will never happen, since men and women of good will who want to make the Second Amendment work for ALL Citizens can never be elected or reelected as long as money and not reason decide elections.

We believe in restrictions.....violent criminals should not have guns, and if they are caught carrying, owning or using them, they should be arrested. Violently mentally ill individuals should not have guns......but that does not include people with insomnia, who sought counseling after the death of a loved one........or any other case that the anti gun nuts will use to keep normal, law abiding people from owning guns, simply because they can use the mentally ill provision to get more people banned from using guns.....


We know how you think and what you want.....no more playing around with you nuts......

And the U.S. is only violent because of violent gangs in democrat controlled states and cities.........get rid of those states and cities from the stats, and we are less violent than Europe......

Were any of the most recent mass murder's "violent criminals" until they shot, and killed innocents in cold blood?

Were any of the most recent mass murder's "violently mentally ill" until they shot and killed in cold blood innocents?

Pointing fingers without detail and evidence is easy making your opinion on cause and effect ridiculous. Let's pretend it's all Ronald Reagan's fault, you see his failure, and his justice department's failure, to recognize and work to mitigate the growing drug problem and its connection to the emerging gang issues is the cause of all of today's gang and drug epidemic. "Just say NO" was as ridiculous as your post.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

 

[BULLDOG]

Damn you are dense. There is no record kept of any potential background check. Didn't you listen to any of the discussion of this before?

Damn, you are an ass. The scheme that the Bloomberg people are pushing here in Nevada has a gun registry as part of the Bill.

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Because they are pointless and stupid.....current background checks have not stopped the 8-9,000 gun murders each year, nor any of the mass shootings that have happened...the criminals get their guns by stealing them or having family or friends, who can pass background checks by the guns......and mass shooters in the past.....have passed multiple background checks before they went on their shooting sprees.....

Universal background checks will require registering firearms in order to track where they are going....and that is simply the first step that the anti gunners need when they get the power to ban or confiscate guns.....

Universal background checks are just another anti gun nut lie.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

Nice try. Traffic laws only apply when you do something WRONG with your car on a public street. The gun laws your ilk proposes punishes people BEFORE they do something wrong. That is prior restraint, and that is what makes a lot of these gun laws unconstitutional.

Traffic laws apply to everyone. It's not ok to ignore the laws just because you haven't run over anyone yet.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course it is against the law

The NRA doesn't care about what tools are available to you to break the law.

Now, suppose you want to shoot up a classroom full of first graders. Everyone knows it is against the law. The guy doing it will probably kill himself anyway so the law does not matter to him

So, whats the best weapon to use for slaughtering first graders? You wouldn't want a single shot muzzle loader...too inefficient
The best weapon for slaughtering first graders is one of those semi-automatic (you can alter it to go full auto) assault rifles (gotta look cool while you mow down first graders) with a 35-50 round magazine

Thank the NRA that you can still go to your local gun shop and buy one

It is the murderous act of killing the children that is wrong, not buying the firearm, Mr Silly.

Why should I be punished by restrictions to my freedoms when other people chose to do illegal things?

There are millions of AR 15s in the hands of American citizens that do not use them for any crime. In fact in relative terms they are very seldom used in crime. They are not the weapon of choice for the great majority of criminals.

Why should I lose my right to own an AR-15 for legal uses because some deranged shithead decides to use it in a crime? Where is the justice in that?

The greatest mass murder in American history was perpetrated using airplanes. Should we ban airplanes because some people used them for a crime?

The NRA protects my right of freedom and you despicable Libtards want to take those freedoms away.

What legal right is infringed if you are able to use a bolt action rifle for your legal activities?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.

There no logic involved at all here as traffic laws are not intended to prevent deaths.
Laws cannot prevent people form breaking the law; any such law is passed to no good purpose.
laws that restrict the exercise of a right to no good purpose violate the constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Libs are insane. You used to be able to buy guns mail order from Sears or the corner hardware store, no checks at all. But liberals deteriorated society with moral decay so now they think guns are the problem?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a liberal? Wow, I didn't know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Were any of the most recent mass murder's "violent criminals" until they shot, and killed innocents in cold blood?
Were any of the most recent mass murder's "violently mentally ill" until they shot and killed in cold blood innocents?

Wait...
You want to restrict peoples' rights because they might commit a crime?
Really?

 

[BULLDOG]

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

You can drive your car all you want without obeying any traffic laws or getting a license, providing you are not on public streets.

Public streets are paid for by pubic funds and therefore subject to public traffic laws and a license requirement. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms. Apples and oranges.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right that has no qualifications or licensing requirements to it. In fact it was created because it is "necessary to the security of a free state". It says so right there in the Bill of Rights.

The Secondment Amendment is the only license I need to keep and bear arms and it doesn't say a damn thing about registration, background checks, assault weapon bans or restrictions on the size of magazines. Nothing about restricting handguns or having to get a concealed weapons permit. In fact the only thing it really says is that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty straightforward, isn't it? However, I am always amazed at how such a simple statement is always beyond the ability of a Moon Bat to understand.

Cut through the crap. Nobody is trying to stop reasonable gun use. You want military style weapons for the war you want to have with the government. Bunch of crazies led by traitors.

 

[westwall]

Libs are insane. You used to be able to buy guns mail order from Sears or the corner hardware store, no checks at all. But liberals deteriorated society with moral decay so now they think guns are the problem?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a liberal? Wow, I didn't know.

No, he wasn't a liberal. He WAS a progressive like you though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Cut through the crap. Nobody is trying to stop reasonable gun use. You want military style weapons for the war you want to have with the government. Bunch of crazies led by traitors.

Do you like like this to your kids?

 

[martybegan]

Damn, you are an ass. The scheme that the Bloomberg people are pushing here in Nevada has a gun registry as part of the Bill.

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Because they are pointless and stupid.....current background checks have not stopped the 8-9,000 gun murders each year, nor any of the mass shootings that have happened...the criminals get their guns by stealing them or having family or friends, who can pass background checks by the guns......and mass shooters in the past.....have passed multiple background checks before they went on their shooting sprees.....

Universal background checks will require registering firearms in order to track where they are going....and that is simply the first step that the anti gunners need when they get the power to ban or confiscate guns.....

Universal background checks are just another anti gun nut lie.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment.....

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

Nice try. Traffic laws only apply when you do something WRONG with your car on a public street. The gun laws your ilk proposes punishes people BEFORE they do something wrong. That is prior restraint, and that is what makes a lot of these gun laws unconstitutional.

Traffic laws apply to everyone. It's not ok to ignore the laws just because you haven't run over anyone yet.

Traffic laws don't prevent you from getting a car in the first place, and don't discriminate between people due to various reasons, such as job, government status etc. And the DMV cannot deny you a license "just because"

 

[martybegan]

Of course it is against the law

The NRA doesn't care about what tools are available to you to break the law.

Now, suppose you want to shoot up a classroom full of first graders. Everyone knows it is against the law. The guy doing it will probably kill himself anyway so the law does not matter to him

So, whats the best weapon to use for slaughtering first graders? You wouldn't want a single shot muzzle loader...too inefficient
The best weapon for slaughtering first graders is one of those semi-automatic (you can alter it to go full auto) assault rifles (gotta look cool while you mow down first graders) with a 35-50 round magazine

Thank the NRA that you can still go to your local gun shop and buy one

It is the murderous act of killing the children that is wrong, not buying the firearm, Mr Silly.

Why should I be punished by restrictions to my freedoms when other people chose to do illegal things?

There are millions of AR 15s in the hands of American citizens that do not use them for any crime. In fact in relative terms they are very seldom used in crime. They are not the weapon of choice for the great majority of criminals.

Why should I lose my right to own an AR-15 for legal uses because some deranged shithead decides to use it in a crime? Where is the justice in that?

The greatest mass murder in American history was perpetrated using airplanes. Should we ban airplanes because some people used them for a crime?

The NRA protects my right of freedom and you despicable Libtards want to take those freedoms away.

What legal right is infringed if you are able to use a bolt action rifle for your legal activities?

Why should people be limited to bolt action rifles?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What legal right is infringed if you are able to use a bolt action rifle for your legal activities?

ONLY bolt action rifles? To the exclusion of all other kinds of firearms?
The right to keep and bear arms.

 

[BULLDOG]

[

If you can't figure out that restrictions are an effort to limit gun ownership by people who should never own guns, you have a problem I can't help. I don't know anything about NY gun laws, or your particular situation, and it seems childish for you to oppose all gun regulation on the basis of that one situation. For all I know, you could be right as far as your individual disagreement with NY. That still doesn't matter when you are talking about common sense regulation across the country.

The problem is defining "people who should never own guns".

If the Libtards were reasonable then we could probably agree on a reasonable law restricting convicted violent felons and people in insane asylums. However, as we have found out the Libtards are not reasonable. For instance, in California the bureaucrats think it is unreasonable for a law abiding person to own a standard AR-15. That is as unreasonable as it comes.

A couple of months ago in NY a veteran had his firearms taken away from him because under NY's SAFE Act it was found reasonable to take his firearms because he told a doctor he had insomnia.

Prior to the Heller and McDonald cases DC and Chicago felt it was reasonable to prevent someone from having a handgun.

The list goes on and on.

When the Libtards pull their heads out of their asses then we can talk about what reasonable really means but in the meantime they are not capable of being reasonable.

I don't want the government telling me how to comply with my Constitutional rights. I don't want to get permission from the filthy ass government before being allowed to enjoy my Constitutional rights. What part of those statements do you not understand?

So you are willing to let obviously dangerous people have guns until all the things you see as a problem are worked out? That's pretty stupid.

Progressives let obviously dangerous people out of prison all the time. Here you have people who have been CONVICTED of violent crimes, and you all fight to let them out. Why is that?

Because we are not China or Russia or a dozen other countries who have kangaroo courts and whose citizens suffer under regimes of cruel and callous conservatives.

No, we're not. However in OUR courts, and with our system of justice we have CONVICTED tens of thousands of violent criminals and you progressives fight tooth and nail to get them released. Why? You are more worried about honest citizens owning guns for defense than you are for ALREADY PROVEN VIOLENT OPERATORS! Your arguments are moronic given that history.

Tens of thousands have been convicted, and thousands have been executed. Evidently you are OK with letting the guilty people go free as long as somebody's ass is blamed. I don't like the idea of killing or locking up innocent people while the real bad guys go free. Either way, that is not the subject here, and I'm not sure why you are trying to hijack the thread.

 

[Iceweasel]

Libs are insane. You used to be able to buy guns mail order from Sears or the corner hardware store, no checks at all. But liberals deteriorated society with moral decay so now they think guns are the problem?

Lee Harvey Oswald was a liberal? Wow, I didn't know.

WTF? Is that supposed to have meaning?

 

[rightwinger]

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

You can drive your car all you want without obeying any traffic laws or getting a license, providing you are not on public streets.

Public streets are paid for by pubic funds and therefore subject to public traffic laws and a license requirement. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms. Apples and oranges.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right that has no qualifications or licensing requirements to it. In fact it was created because it is "necessary to the security of a free state". It says so right there in the Bill of Rights.

The Secondment Amendment is the only license I need to keep and bear arms and it doesn't say a damn thing about registration, background checks, assault weapon bans or restrictions on the size of magazines. Nothing about restricting handguns or having to get a concealed weapons permit. In fact the only thing it really says is that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty straightforward, isn't it? However, I am always amazed at how such a simple statement is always beyond the ability of a Moon Bat to understand.

Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

 

[westwall]

The problem is defining "people who should never own guns".

If the Libtards were reasonable then we could probably agree on a reasonable law restricting convicted violent felons and people in insane asylums. However, as we have found out the Libtards are not reasonable. For instance, in California the bureaucrats think it is unreasonable for a law abiding person to own a standard AR-15. That is as unreasonable as it comes.

A couple of months ago in NY a veteran had his firearms taken away from him because under NY's SAFE Act it was found reasonable to take his firearms because he told a doctor he had insomnia.

Prior to the Heller and McDonald cases DC and Chicago felt it was reasonable to prevent someone from having a handgun.

The list goes on and on.

When the Libtards pull their heads out of their asses then we can talk about what reasonable really means but in the meantime they are not capable of being reasonable.

I don't want the government telling me how to comply with my Constitutional rights. I don't want to get permission from the filthy ass government before being allowed to enjoy my Constitutional rights. What part of those statements do you not understand?

So you are willing to let obviously dangerous people have guns until all the things you see as a problem are worked out? That's pretty stupid.

Progressives let obviously dangerous people out of prison all the time. Here you have people who have been CONVICTED of violent crimes, and you all fight to let them out. Why is that?

Because we are not China or Russia or a dozen other countries who have kangaroo courts and whose citizens suffer under regimes of cruel and callous conservatives.

No, we're not. However in OUR courts, and with our system of justice we have CONVICTED tens of thousands of violent criminals and you progressives fight tooth and nail to get them released. Why? You are more worried about honest citizens owning guns for defense than you are for ALREADY PROVEN VIOLENT OPERATORS! Your arguments are moronic given that history.

Tens of thousands have been convicted, and thousands have been executed. Evidently you are OK with letting the guilty people go free as long as somebody's ass is blamed. I don't like the idea of killing or locking up innocent people while the real bad guys go free. Either way, that is not the subject here, and I'm not sure why you are trying to hijack the thread.

I'm not talking about wrongfully convicted people silly person. I'm talking about legitimate, violent people, who should be locked up forever, yet progressive lawyers and their ilk fight like devils to get these people released. I ask you again...why? Below are a very, very few of the types I'm talking about. Why are scumbags like this EVER allowed out of prison? Why do you fight for their release?



‘I know he’s going to hurt someone else’: Victim's families dismayed as Washington frees repeat child rapist
Cory Roberts was 13 years old when he was jailed for beating and raping a 3-year-old girl. He was released in 2001 but sent back to jail weeks later for assaulting another toddler. Now, psychologists say he's no longer violent or sexually attracted to children. He was sent to a halfway house on Monday.
Wash. releases violent child rapist - NY Daily News



"SEATTLE — It is a crime as cold and calculated as they come and one that stunned the communities of West Seattle and Kitsap County, and has haunted the victim for more than 30 years."

Violent rapist sentenced to life is released living in Seattle Q13 FOX News



LOS ANGELES —District Attorney Jackie Lacey said Tuesday her office will challenge a Northern California judge's decision to release a sexually violent predator in Los Angeles County.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Gilbert Brown granted convicted serial rapist Christopher Evans Hubbart, 62, a conditional release from custody in May.


Violent serial NorCal rapist to be released Local News - KSBW Home

 

[westwall]

Nearly 1.3 million people die in car crashes every year. Because our traffic laws don't prevent every death, does that mean you oppose all traffic laws? Using your logic, you should.
Why are right wingers so traitorous till they are stockpiling for a civil war? If you don't love our country then leave.

You can drive your car all you want without obeying any traffic laws or getting a license, providing you are not on public streets.

Public streets are paid for by pubic funds and therefore subject to public traffic laws and a license requirement. That is not the same as the right to keep and bear arms. Apples and oranges.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right that has no qualifications or licensing requirements to it. In fact it was created because it is "necessary to the security of a free state". It says so right there in the Bill of Rights.

The Secondment Amendment is the only license I need to keep and bear arms and it doesn't say a damn thing about registration, background checks, assault weapon bans or restrictions on the size of magazines. Nothing about restricting handguns or having to get a concealed weapons permit. In fact the only thing it really says is that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty straightforward, isn't it? However, I am always amazed at how such a simple statement is always beyond the ability of a Moon Bat to understand.

Interesting how you selectively quote the second amendment

You claim guns are "necessary for a free state" but omit the reference to a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
Then you claim that licenses are not constitutional but don't mention how militias can be well regulated without knowing who is armed and what weapons they have

Oh you're the master of the selective quote there lefty!

 

[BULLDOG]

The NRA an all their little minions are against universal background checks in any form.

Rightly so, for a multitude of perfectly legitimate reasons.

Because it would reduce profit for gun manufacturers

Universal background checks would reduce profits for the gun manufacturers?
You obviously aren't thinking as this is an inane assertion.

Just because it's more complex than you are comfortable with doesn't mean it is inane.

1. Gun nuts see background checks as evidence of "THEY'RE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
2. Gun nuts frantically say "I HAVE TO BUY MORE GUNS NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"
3. Gun manufacturers make a fortune.
4. Gun manufacturers give the NRA lots of money to keep telling the GUN NUTS that "THEY ARE COMING TO GET OUR GUNS"

For the NRA and gun manufacturers, they see it as "THE CIRCLE OF LIFE?